guildwarsfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:Karlos
If you have questions or wish to discuss anything, please leave me a note here... ---- A small bit of randomness: the Diablo 2 collector's edition comes with a DVD with the cinematics on it. I know because I have it. --Fyren 18:55, 6 Jul 2005 (EST) Thanks for the tip! :) After paying $40 for the game, I'll wait until the collector's edition is for $5 before I get it. "And the evil that was once vanquished shall rise anew... Wrapped in the guide of man shall he walk amongst the innocent... And terror shall consume they that dwell upon the earth..." Freaky stuff! :) --Karlos 19:15, 6 Jul 2005 (EST) ---- :"Smoove" with the Regions category ;) 09:48, 8 Jul 2005 (EST) ::Thanks. It'd been a long time coming. :) --Karlos 11:29, 8 Jul 2005 (EST) ---- Hi! Good work on the armor crafters! That's something I was planning to do once I had the chance :) For the rest of them, could you use the same form as in Stingray_Strand_Crafter? You can just copy and paste the stuff, and leave all the areas blank. For the picture, type in whatever makes sense for the picture name. It will show up as "picture not found", but that's fine, because I'll be adding them within the next week. 17:53, 10 Jul 2005 (EST) :Done. I just looked at the wanted page and so all those missing armor crafters. There ought to be a better way of cross-referencing these things. Somehow if you say this armor is available at Hagen in the Armor's page it should also appear under Hagen's page. --Karlos 18:08, 10 Jul 2005 (EST) ::Good job, it looks great. ::The only way to cross-reference them would have been to make a category for each crafter. But, that would have really looked messy. 23:18, 10 Jul 2005 (EST) ---- It's rare to meet a Planescape: Torment fan. That is the single best story ever written. It's a shame that Bioware is leaning more towards the action-oriented games now. —Tanaric 22:07, 13 Jul 2005 (EST) : Amen to that. I have played that game over and over. It never gets old. It lacked a lot of the "cool" aspects of equipment and armor. But the sense of gratification from uncovering the story was sublime. The complexities of the characters. the conversations between the Nameless One and Dakkon and Vhailor are simply awesome. And then to uncover to Dakkon that it was all made up.. Dang! Oh, no! I am gushing again! :) :Nordom : Attention; Morte. I have a question. Do you have a destiny? A purpose? :Morte : Is Annah still wearing clothes? :Nordom : Affirmatory. :Morte : Then the answer is yes. :) --Karlos 22:37, 13 Jul 2005 (EST) ---- Well done on the conditions revamp. That sorely needed to be done! —Tanaric 20:46, 2 Aug 2005 (EST) :Thanx --Karlos 20:51, 2 Aug 2005 (EST) ---- Thanks a lot, that is the way I wanted it, but would not get it to be =) --Xeeron 19:38, 29 Sep 2005 (EST) Lists in Skill Type Articles Here's some things wrong with your changes to the skill lists in Signet, Stance, Hex, Enchantment, Sacrifice, and Knockdown: *The new list titles are way too subjective in meaning (for example, someone added Diversion to "Skills that harm/hinder Signet users", which would have much less of a case in the old list title). *The user can no longer tell that all skills that directly involve those skill types are among the lists, and that the lists are limited to such. *The lists are sometimes broken up into multiple very, very short lists; some have a single item! These are a lot less convenient for the user to navigate. For the information of how the skills relate to the skill type: unless it adds a lot of utility to the user and is objective enough, please consider keeping it limited to parenthetical information after each element in the list instead. --Rezyk 15:24, 1 Oct 2005 (EST) :Let's take it over in, say, Talk:Hex? --Karlos 16:13, 1 Oct 2005 (EST) Our little argument I almost forgot about the False Gods discussion. Time to pick it up again, especially after your last remark. Sorry, I can't leave it standing like that. But I'll take it to your talk page, because this is about you (and me) more than it is about The False Gods. That it was "my" remark being removed is clearly NOT the heart of the problem. It is perfectly clear to me that anything in a wiki is public domain and doesn't belong to anyone. Countless times in the past I've acceded that other people (including you) have edited "my" text. That's because I agreed that their wording sounded better (which is easy, considering I'm not a native speaker), their text was more elaborated, or they convinced me that there was an error in my text. Actually it's quite easy to convince me. I don't claim to be impeccable. The point is that in this specialy case you did NOT convince me. Nor did you prove me wrong. There is nothing to prove here. It's matter of opinion. But you behave like there was a definite right or wrong here, and like YOU were the judge over it. I'm not at all convinced that this is all about me. This is about you just as much as it is about me. You like to see yourself as the Judge of Objectivity and the Keeper of the thousand Rules in this Wiki. You reserve the right for yourself to edit any article to your liking, but if somebody insists and reverts the edit you call that "childish games". Double standards, anyone? You behave like you're an admin, which - as we know - may soon come true. I hope in that case we'll manage to come to a live and let live agreement. You're not dumb. An argument with somebody with a sharp mind can be fun, even if you disagree. But I'm afraight with one of us having admin powers, discussions are going to become a bit lopsided. You say I'm going to have a lot of problems here. Surprisingly, I haven't had any so far, except with you. I really enjoyed being a contributor of this wiki in the past, and I'd hate to leave because of a stupid personal matter like this. Thanks for saying that I'm a creative contributor to this wiki. I can say the same about you. But I wish you'd focus on constructive work more than supervising and critisizing other people's work. Unless you become an admin, of course, which would officially make it your job to do that. ;) --Tetris L 04:48, 5 Oct 2005 (EST) :Karlos, these are pretty much the exact same sentiments (good parts and bad) I had in our clash. (I don't mean to start an argument or get involved in this one; just thought you should know.) --Rezyk 08:36, 5 Oct 2005 (EST) :I'm getting into the bad pattern of interfering in arguments involving Karlos. Nevertheless, there is something I need to say: admins do not have any greater say on content/style than anyone else, as far as I'm concerned. Even if Karlos does become an admin (I think he'd do a good job), that will not give him any more authority as far as generating or maintaining content. This is a collaborative, democratic project, and all voices are equal. —Tanaric 09:49, 5 Oct 2005 (EST) Let me explain things a bit from my side. There are two things I love doing in this Wiki: *Lore and Story: While I think the overall plot is like a Tom & Jerry cartoon compared to Torment's Shawshank Redemption, :) I like to understand the story of any game and fully explore the history and the characters. Not for any perceived in-game benefit, just out of love for adventures. *Editing: Not editing as in changing, but editing as in newspaper editing. Supervising the grammar, the language, the conciseness and the objectivity. I am a bit compulsive by nature and like for things to be tidy and make sense (according to me of course). But above that, I am an editor of an actual English language publication and in general enjoy checking every nook and cranny in every article and making sure things are consistent and to the standard. This is why I will push for standardizing Skill progression tables regardless of which format that standard takes. I like for things to follow a system and to be tidy and accessible to all. Now, one of the reasons we have had friction, I think, is that we share the love of the first (you like and care about the lore and story angles too), and you do not seem to care (as much) about the second (i.e. that everything is in a system and that a process governs what we are doing). I think this is why we had so many "run-ins." As Tanaric said above, I think you (and Rezyk) are understanding my role incorrectly. When I first came here, I used to think the same... That to challenge LordBiro or Dlanod, I'd have to take their permission first because they were admins and I am a lay citizen and admins have the final word. But I quickly learned that it's not like that. You'll note that in my quarrel with Rezyk, I did not plead for admins to "stop him" but instead I made a plea for the community to weigh in. That's all I care about. If I do become an admin, I will actually have to be very careful because some people might think I am "running" the site. I edit left and right because I DO think my edits are good obviously, or I would not do them, but I DON'T do them because I think I am in charge of this place or that my wording is unchangeable. I do feel that overall few people here match my care for "editing peculiarities" such as punctuation and grammar and overall style and objectivity. But that does not mean that I feel my opinions on these issues are final and unchallengeable. I have tried since coming here to make this Wiki serious. i.e. articles look as crisp and professional as possible. That is why there is nary an article that pops up on the recent changes list that I do not touch. As for defending my edits... If you look at the articles on this site you'll find many, especially in mission overviews, quest descriptions and lore that I have written. Some of them I no longer even recognize. I don't care and never tried to "defend" my style vs someone else's. Working in a magazine teaches you that pretty well. If you edit too much, the writers hate you, if you edit too little, the readers hate you. With regards to our little struggle in False Gods, as I said then. I felt your advice was not that good. We had a tussle and then I asked for input from others. I should not have dragged it into a semi-revert-war, especially since you deserve better from me and for that I apologize. But I still think your comment should not be there. So, in summary, I am the Keeper of a thousand Rules but I am not the Judge of Objectivity, I am the Pursuer of Objectivity. --Karlos 16:55, 5 Oct 2005 (EST) :Wait a second! I just noticed! I am an admin!! Mwah ha ha haah! To quote Galadriel: "Instead of a dark lord you would have an admin, not dark but annoying and persistent as an alarm clock!! All shall love me and despair!!" :) --Karlos 17:37, 5 Oct 2005 (EST) ::Oh, crap! Who gave him the ring?? The ring to rule all (and in the darkness bind them). ::Seriously now: Congrats for becoming an admin! You had my vote. I understand your motivation to edit in this wiki (both in the meaning of changing and newspaper editing). And you're good at what you do. I'd say that 8 out of 10 times I agree with your suggestions (except when it comes to the thousand rules ;)). I'm an engineer, and like all engineers I like things to be well structured and organized. We're not that different in that respect. I am however, not willing to stick to all rules just for the sake of it. My first priority is to make this wiki as useful as possible for our users. If a rule hinders us more than it helps to make the wiki useful, then I'll gladly bend that rule, or revise it. ::Anyway ... I trust you won't abuse your admin powers. If you disagree with somebody over something that is a matter of opinion, and no agreement can found in the discussion of the facts, put the matter to a vote by the community. Anybody should be willing to accept the result of a little poll. But never, ever should you say (openly or between the lines) "I'm right because I'm an admin" and then declare you opinion as the final decision. I trust you know that, and will act accordingly. --Tetris L 02:41, 6 Oct 2005 (EST) :::Thank you for the advice and the vote of confidence. I offer you a weapon in exchange. If ever you feel I am bullying you (or any other admin), do not simply leave the wiki, but instead invoke other wiki users and admins and demote the foul-playing admin. This is everybit your wiki as it is mine or Ollj's. --Karlos 18:33, 6 Oct 2005 (EST) Skill Progression Math Hey Karlos, i noticed you added my damage note on final thrust to the article, i only just started making those... should i just put them in every article i make a note on that does not yet have a table? --Genveir :I'd say leave it in the talk page. If you want to add an actual table to the article like in, for example, Mind Shock, that's fine. --Fyren Admin Let's make this a bit more formal, with a big subheading and everything—congratulations! You are hereby Karlos, 8th Sysop of GuildWiki! —Tanaric 04:35, 6 Oct 2005 (EST) :My my a grave case of sysoption I hope the patient gets well soon. Grats! =) --Xeeron 08:46, 6 Oct 2005 (EST) ::Thank you.. Thank you for the Scepter of Orr.. >:) I'll take very good care of it. --Karlos 18:35, 6 Oct 2005 (EST) :::I think one of your first admin acts should be to delete the sysoption article. :) —Tanaric 10:59, 9 Oct 2005 (EST) You're a bureaucrat! --Fyren 15:29, 16 October 2005 (EST) :Who? Me or Tanaric? If it's me, I confess to the crime. I am fascinated with process. Here's a little more info: :--Karlos 15:50, 16 October 2005 (EST) Description: Boss found in the northwestern area of the Wiki. Skills Used: *Conjure Fine Print: For 8..18 seconds you discuss the finer issues of the problem. You cannot move, but all nearby foes are Dazed. *Form Committee: For 20 seconds, all allies gain 1..3 energy regeneration and 1..3 health, they cannot deal any damage however. *Never Ending Argument: Elite Enchantment Spell. While you maintain this enchantment, every time you are hit, attacker gets the same amount dealt back to them. *Performance Review: Hex Spell. Target foes loses all adrenaline. *"They're penetrating the Bureaucracy!": Shout. For every dead ally nearby, all nearby foes suffer health degeneration of 1..5 and energy denegeneration of 1..3. Items Dropped: *Bureuaucrat's Monocle *Tome of Unwavering Protocol :http://www.guildwiki.org/wiki?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights --Fyren 15:53, 16 October 2005 (EST) ::Hmm, I had no idea what that meant. Now that I went and read about it. It maybe a mistake by Gravewit. In any case, I think the decision to make someone an admin should not be one person's decision. I like how we did yours and mine. People asked for it and nominated names. I think that's how it should be. All that being said, I think we should try to find a way to insert Karlos the Bureaucrat into the actual game. :) --Karlos 15:59, 16 October 2005 (EST) Too Personal It has become evident to me (through the cases in Evade, Hex, and Category:Software) that you are taking edits of your submissions way too personally. This needs to stop. In all of those, we start off with a potentially reasonable disagreement but you come out of the gate acting as if I had kicked your mother. Then you leave me to come up with versions & justifications to satisfy your issues, while pushing the current article state to your version so that you don't have to take my issues seriously. --Rezyk 05:00, 9 Oct 2005 (EST) :Not exactly my perception. On Software, I assumed you were mocking, and I was wrong, and I apologized. I assumed you were mocking not because I can't stand people doing edits to text I put into articles, but because of the bad history between us. :I see the story in Hex as the complete opposite of what you just recounted. You made an addition to that article, a very good one too. I edited that addition into a different format. You reverted my edit. I tried to convince you of my edit, but you would not accept. :Now, the more you talk about this on Talk:Hex, the more I am convinced it is you who has an issue with accepting my editing of your articles. You are the one who seems to have an issue with me in general (see above). The proof (to me) is that you have stated gradually on Talk:Hex that you never actually liked the way the skills were listed on your design. Yet, you kept reverting my change religiously AS IF you were actually defending something you believed in (which you didn't) or as if my edits were a total disaster (which they weren't as evident by you modeling your User:Rezyk/RelatedSkills after it). :I am sorry, but I cannot accept that or respect it. Hence the feeling that you are targeting my edits for some personal reason which, for the life of me, I cannot figure out. --Karlos 17:45, 9 Oct 2005 (EST) ::Yes, I have had issues with your edits of content I submitted -- but, excepting certain reverts, these issues have only been "normal" subjective disagreements about which content is best. I see you believe otherwise for at least the Talk:Hex case, which I'll cover below. --Rezyk 17:09, 11 Oct 2005 (EST) ::Yes, I guess I do have a personal issue with you in general, but only as a result of Talk:Hex (discussed below). That said, I also say it would be pretty wrong/ugly/petty for me to keep targetting your edits or base content discussion on it, and regret that you might feel I'm doing this. All I can offer to indicate otherwise is to note that for all these disputes, I had already been involved in the article before the disputed edit so it's obviously stuff I have thought about before, rather than picked up because of your involvement. I suppose you also might have felt that I targetted Hex because of our discussion over Category:Creatures; while that discussion did prompt me to take action, I assure you I had been mulling over the issue of those articles since before then. --Rezyk 17:09, 11 Oct 2005 (EST) ::Yes, I have always not liked many things about my original Hex design, and have always liked certain things about your original edit. But this wasn't revealed gradually -- I explicitly stated as much in my second edit of Talk:Hex! I have also always felt that there is bad stuff (the 3 points I initially brought up) in your original that overall outweigh the good. User:Rezyk/RelatedSkills and most of my other edits are attempts to keep your good stuff while negating/minimalising those bad points. There's nothing strange about that, and it was actually my original hope that the discussion naturally would seek that kind of path itself. --Rezyk 17:09, 11 Oct 2005 (EST) ::I kept reverting because I was defending 2 things I believed in: ::# my opinion was reasonable enough to warrant discussion ::# specific contributors should not get preferential treatment (with respect to policy) ::From these I felt it was more than fair for me to want a decent discussion before having to accept the changes to Hex and similiar articles. So I didn't like it when you reverted forward again immediately while calling my issues ridiculous. And I really didn't like it when you started acting as if mine were horribly unjustified reverts and yours not, as if it was somehow wrong for me to have not already submitted at only 4 hours into the discussion! I still can't see that as anything but a bully move that sought to unfairly circumvent having to take my issues seriously, and is the heart of my issue with you now. --Rezyk 17:09, 11 Oct 2005 (EST) :::I have had no problems with you prior to Hex. I reverted your edit on Category:Creatures but I could not tell your name from Impresario's at that point. :::I still find your stand unjustified and unfair. Your design was poor, someone came up with another design (by your admission, a better design), you reverted it and engaged in a severe dispute with them about it, only to work privately in your user page on improving that design. I think the obvious correct choice was to keep that design and improve it. Not revert it and then privately improve it. It's not like the existing design was liked by anyone, not even you liked your design. :::I have been very honest with you. Your edits in Category:Creature were breaking the system and setting a new precedent, all I asked was that you discuss it. I do this with every perceived major edit in the structure of articles in the Wiki (see Tetris and the Forgotten). Maybe I should let go and be a little more loose. But my experience has been that we suffer a lot when such things are not discussed and formulated well early on. :::I have also been honest with you in that I felt you had no business reverting my edit when you were a junior contributor, defending a poor design and doing it for personal reasons. Maybe I should have been more diplomatic and patient in telling you that. I got carried away as I felt your edits were personal and this is why I kept saying "it is not your article" because I was defending process (veteran contributor, better design), not my edits. You, on the other hand, were trying to teach me a lesson, using the wiki's articles. I was going nuts because I knew you were placing inferior pages on the Wiki just to make a personal point to me. I recognize now that I should have been wiser and more patient. In engaging you in that mini revert war, I belittled my design and the process I was defending. It was easy for anyone looking at the edits to think we were two people childishly fighting over our version of things. When in truth, your version was not even liked by yourself. :::As for the lesson itself you are trying to teach me. I understand you felt bullied, and perhaps I did not seem very respectful. You seem to be a person who takes a lot of pride in his work and my cynical/sarcastic approach tends to rub people like you the worst. I meant no offense, and sense I understood that, I have made it very clear that I truly appreciate the work you did and have been doing. But I never tried to drown your voice, I never tried to obscure your work, I did not make it a "do you believe me or him" kinda thing, because I do not want to bully anyone. Think about this when you evaluate whether or not I was bullying you. --Karlos 17:47, 11 Oct 2005 (EST) ::::Whoa, whoa, whoa.. I never felt your original design was better than my original design! I felt it was better in some ways, worse in some ways, and worse overall. I don't know where I supposedly said otherwise, but either you misread me or I mistyped. These are the main reasons I opted for reverting: ::::#I felt my version was overall better/superior (though not strictly) and headed in a better direction. ::::#I needed clarification on the policy defending your revert of Category:Creatures (because it had huge ramifications on how I participate on this wiki) and was frustrated in trying to get a straight answer. So I went with my interpretation of it, to either verify it or have it corrected. I am not attacking that policy nor trying to "teach you a lesson" about the Category:Creatures case. ::::#It was the way to make sure my issues got due consideration. I was especially wary of this with you because I felt you had earlier been able to be dismissive of my issue in Evade by having that article left at your version. (I really don't mean to bring up old stuff and that case certainly wasn't a big deal, but this was an important part of my reasoning and my reaction to your reverts.) ::::I was not using this as a personal attack, although I was being especially defensive about getting bullied. I realize/understand now that yours were reactions to what you saw as a personal attack and that bullying was not your intention, so I apologize for accusing you of that. --Rezyk 19:49, 13 Oct 2005 (EST) ::::Your characterization of me reverting "only to work privately in my user page on improving that design" is entirely unfair. ::::*It was unfeasible for me to just do the improvements on your articles in the first place because I couldn't come up with enough to fix them well myself. I only saw how from much discussion and others' contributions. ::::*I believe that from the start, I was always working the hardest within the discussion in trying to find ways to satisfy everyone's issues. ::::*I originally started working on that user page for the discussion -- hopefully for a better compromise and to clarify the relation in other articles for a better understanding of the big picture. Then a vote was called and being waited on, so I just hastily put it up for public consumption. ::::*During the vote and ever since, I have always been up for pursuing more discussion and improvements. But there was no feedback/interest shown by anyone else about it (my last proposal in the thread went unanswered). So I continued working on improvements, and that I was now doing so alone was not out of choice. ::::--Rezyk 19:49, 13 Oct 2005 (EST) Maps Hey Karlos, u left a note on my user page. U can use my skill maps if u like and I know some of the locations can vary, but most of them have a fixed path they walk and i indicated their locations on that route (like maxine coldstone). But thanx for the compliment btw, i'm now busy with the cristal desert, so keep an eye on the site if u want that one 2 --Gaia 13:00, 12 oct 2005 :Thank you. I am sorry, I read your response and told Tetris on this page we now have your permission, but I forgot to respond. Thank you very much. Tetris has a long way before he gets to the Ring of Fire though. --Karlos 21:09, 12 Oct 2005 (EST) ::Ok, do you have already have a map of the southern Shiverpeaks too, or can u give me some pointers to make the one on my site better so u can use it here (just tell me when u really don't need any other maps, but i have already got all the blanc maps on my pc anyway). --Gaia 13:12, 12 Oct 2005 :::No, our resident cartographer is still in Old Ascalon. :) If you'd like to upload maps, check out what we have in Maps and see what complements our collection. For this you can simply place links to your site. The maps Tetris is making are comprehensive maps with NPCs and collectors pointed out in each area. Feel free to help with that if you like (see Old Ascalon for an example). --Karlos 21:34, 12 Oct 2005 (EST) Right-aligned TOC Beaten to it =P check my userpage Skuld‡ 01:09, 19 October 2005 (EST) :Doesn't count! It's on your user page! Instead of utilizing it for the good of the wikian people, you opted to use it for your own nefarious purposes! :) --Karlos 04:02, 19 October 2005 (EST) ::I don't care who invented it first. It's great. Thanks! --Squeg 06:05, 19 October 2005 (EST) Shameless is the way to go! Atleast I gave you cred! :D